>>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: >> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: >> 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, >> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date.
> I think most the arguments you've made for this stem from subjective > and social problems, not technical ones. Exactly. That's why this is not intended for PMS but for the devmanual. Developer time is one of our most valuable resources. > I'd hate to be artificially limiting the utility of what can be done > with "-r" versions just because *some* of those versions *may* be > confusing for humans. > I could just as easily argue that using -r200 and -r300 is > "confusing", and that 1.2r-300 "could be a problem" and maybe we > should abolish -r'vs entirely. > The -r200 and -r300 were also not just arbitrary numbers, but they > followed the slot version, and so the "-r" suffix was itself not > purely a "X < Y", but also conveyed data about what it was for, and > served as a predictable anti-collision mechanism ( due to the whole > 2-slots-cant-have-identical-versions deal ) I think nobody is arguing against using r200 etc. for special purposes. > And as you know I was considering a similar strategy to be able > to have several variations of the same perl virtual for upgrade > reasons, but that would predictably have a much wider variety of > '-r ' prefixes to represent the wider variety of significant Perl > versions. I would assume 9999 to be high enough, even if you use multiples of 100 to label the slot. Or do you expect having more than 100 slots for Perl? Ulrich
pgpNzqA8Yentt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
